L. S. SREENIVASA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) IN this criminal petition the petitioners have prayed for setting aside the order dated 4-4-19s9 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur, in cr. R. P. No. 40 of 1989. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the complainants in PCR No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chickmagalur, and the respondents are the accused along with two others therein. Therefore, in this Order the petitioners will be referred to as the complainants and the respondents as the accused. ( 3 ) THE complainants filed a private complaint under Section 200, Cr. P. C against these accused and two others for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 44s r/w Section 149, Section 379 r/w Section 149, Section 392 r/w sections 149 and 395 of IPC The learned Magistrate referred the case for investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. to the Deputy Superintendent of police, Chickmagalur. Though the process was not issued against Accused 3 to 5, they voluntarily appeared before the court and objected to the investigation being carried out by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chickmagalur. The trial court having entertained the said application ordered withdrawal of the investigation of the case by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and referred the same to the Superintendent of Police, Chickmagnlur for further investigation without the assistance of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, chickmagalur. The said Order was challenged by the complainants in Cr. R. P. No. 40 of 1989 before the Sessions Judge, Chickmagalur. The learned Sessions judge allowed the said revision petition, set aside the said order of the learned magistrate and directed withdrawal of the reference from the Superintendent of Police, Chickmagalur and to hold the pre-process enquiry under Section 202 of Cr. P. C ( 4 ) IN my view, both the courts below have committed serious errors inasmuch as in the first place the Chief Judicial Magistrate ought not to have allowed the application filed by accused 3 to 5 against whom no process was issued to appear before him and to file the application for withdrawal of the investigation which had already been referred to the Deputy Superintendent of police, Chickmagalur under Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. Secondly he ought not to have withdrawn the reference from Deputy Superintendent of Police, chickmagalur and entrusted the same to the Superintendent of Police, chickmagalur. The learned Sessions Judge has also committed serious error in directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate to hold the pre-process enquiry under section 202, Cr. P. C. and to proceed with the case. ( 5 ) WHEN the Magistrate directs an investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. one or other of two things may follow. The Police, after holding the investigation direct, may find the case to be true and may make a report to that effect under Section 170. If such a report is received by the Magistrate, he may proceed to issue process against the accused persons. If on the other hand, the police finds the case to be false and reports accordingly, which report also, it appears, is to be made under Section 170, the Magistrate has nothing further to do in the chain of that proceeding. He is in seisin of nothing and neither the police nor anybody else is complaining before him and insisting that a proceeding should be started or any further enquiry held. When a police enquiry or investigation is directed under Section 202, Cr. P. C. and the police report is against the complainant, there is a practice of entertaining what are called 'naraji' petitions or protest petitions. Even Section 202 does not contain any express provisions that such petitions can be filed, but they arc always filed and entertained, presumably on the basis that since the Magistrate has taken cognizance upon examination of the complainant on oath, he is in seisin of the case and an application to a court which is in seisin of a case can always be made. The position under Section 156 (3) or to be more correct, Section 170 is far different. It is true that if the complainant is dissatisfied, he may come even at that stage to file a petition embodying his dissatisfaction. If it is so treated, then the complainant will have to be examined on oath before any further action is taken on the petition. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, it is not disputed that the complainant was not examined on oath before referring the case lor police investigation under section 156 (3), Cr. If it is so treated, then the complainant will have to be examined on oath before any further action is taken on the petition. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, it is not disputed that the complainant was not examined on oath before referring the case lor police investigation under section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Magistrate was in seisin of the case. ( 7 ) SRI M. V. Devaraju, the learned Amicus Curiae, representing the respondents submitted that in view of Section 200. Cr. P. C. the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on a private complaint will have to examine the complainant and the witnesses present, if any, upon oath and then only section 200, Cr. P. C comes in to operation. He relied on a decision of the supreme Court in D. Lakshmimarayana Reddy and Others v V. Narayana, 1976 cr. L. J. 1361. Therefore, under these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in directing the Magistrate to take cognizance and record the sworn statement of the complainant and follow the procedure contemplated under Section 202, Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate having ordered investigation under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. could not have been directed by the learned Sessions Judge to lake cognizance and follow the procedure contemplated under Section 202, Cr. P. C. In my opinion, both the courts have committed serious errors. Hence, this petition has to be allowed setting aside both the Orders of the courts below. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed and both the impugned Orders are setaside and the Order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chickmagalur, dated 14-2-19s9 referring the case for investigation to the Deputy superintendent of Police, Chickmagalur, under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. is restored and after receipt of the report from the Deputy Superintendent of police, the Magistrate shall proceed with the case in accordance with law. --- *** --- .